Sunday, March 23, 2008

Why is it that Sen. Hillary Clinton's voters would unequivocally throw their collective support to Sen. Barack Obama were he to become the Democratic nominee for president, but his supporters would not support her if the outcome is reversed? This is not only a supposition of mine, but one acknowledged by many analysts and journalists including Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham and political pundit Peggy Noonan speaking on Sunday's Meet the Press.

With all the heated talk back and forth about uniting/dividng the party, what we need is for all Democrats to come together in November behind whoever is our nominee.

16 Comments:

Because I think she's horrible. I think what the Clintons do in general is horrible. They stop at nothing to win. Unlike Obama who had the balls to NOT take the easy way out on the Reverend Wright stuff. The Clintons care more about winning than they do about the country. I firmly believe that.

And she'll win new york anyway. She doesn't need my vote.

But don't get me wrong. I think Obama has his flaws. (I was an Edwards supporter first.) And I actually think Hillary's health care plan is better than his. BUT, (and it's a big but!) I REALLY feel that Obama would be able to take the country, (and with it, maybe the world) to a better place. I know that sounds nuts, but he's won me over. His demeaner, and yes, his charm, will help with domestic affairs, forgein affairs, and it might even help us get off of this talking head, typical politics, treadmill we've been on since the Regan years. The NAFTA loving, welfare killing, promise-things-like-health-care-and-then-don't-come-through-while-voiting-for-a-stupid-war Clintons will change virtuallly nothing. They'll keep Roe v. Wade, and maybe balance the budget a bit, but their not gonna' take any chances with approaching things in a different way. Obama will. It think that's what a post 9/11, post global warming USA needs.

At the end of the day, I feel Obama is not only going to be inspiring, I actually feel he might TEACH the electorate something. Not that he's smarter than everyone else, (although he his pretty super smart), it's just that, again, he's got the guts, balls, charm, chutzpah, whatever you wanna' call it, to really say what he feels when it's important too. He's been a bit vague on occasion, like all politicians have to be to get this far, but now that he's close and he STILL has the guts to give a speech like he did last week? I was floored. If it's good enough for Bill Richardson, it's good enough for me. He's won me over. I don't care about the democratic party. If Obama runs independent, he's got my vote. Sorry.

I am not so sure that Hillary supporters are going to be so eager to support Obama. Compounding the feeling that Obama is really just an empty suit, is the gut wrenching hatred that has been shown to Clinton, and by extention her supporters. by the Obama voters. I for one won't vote for the candidate of such hate-mongers.

A lot of Obama supporters are not supporting Obama because he's a Democrat. They are supporting him because he represents change in the disgusting world of politics.

Its my opinion that Hillary and Bill Clinton represent everything bad about politicians. (Fear not, I don't think they are the only symbols of corruption in American politics.)

As clearly documenting in Ostroy's partisan mission "..to help Democrats regain the White House and Congress". A lot of Obama supporters rather clean up American politics than play Ostroy's partisan games.

I'm a registered Democrat who is voting for the moderate John McCain because he is the best candidate. I would back an Obama President if I didn't get my first choice, but I will never support Hillary Clinton.

I wouldn't vote for her if she were the nominee because it would mean Democrats must not think it's bad enough. They want mote corporate control of the country. Bush, McCain, Clinton all feed at the same troth. I want a new, New Deal. We may not get it from Obama, but it’s guaranteed we won’t get it from Clinton.

I keep writing and saying this over and over and though I am sure I am pissing in the wind here it goes one more time:

There are four right wing nuts on the supreme court who will be there for the next decade or two---Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts....then there is Kennedy who is mostly a right wing nut but not as bad as the other four and of course the four moderate members who are older or sicker or whatever than the four extremists. The next president may get to make as many as three appointments to the court all of which will come from the Kennedy + moderates side.

One can safely assume that either the god like Obama or the demonic Hillary ( snark :) ) will make far superior appointments to the court than McDog who is beholden to folks like Robertson, Hagee and Bush...AND THIS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH GODDAMN REASON TO VOTE FOR EITHER CLINTON OR OBAMA THAN ANYONE SHOULD NEED!

Hillary and Obama are not qualified to be President. Neither have any military experience (except for Hillary's lies about being sniped at). Hillary has never been the executive of any organization, at least Obama was an editor.

8:24 you nailed it: "One can safely assume that either the god like Obama or the demonic Hillary ( snark :) ) will make far superior appointments to the court than McDog who is beholden to folks like Robertson, Hagee and Bush...AND THIS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH GODDAMN REASON TO VOTE FOR EITHER CLINTON OR OBAMA THAN ANYONE SHOULD NEED!"

None of us can afford 4 more years of this Bush administration, and that is just what we'll have with McPain in the WH.

I'm for Hillary but if it is Obama, I'll hold my nose and pull the lever.

The answer to the question is clearly indicated by the first respondent. The questions is simple, as the title says. However, 11:12 gave a childish answer "because she's horrible" and then went on at great length to tell us why Obama should be the candidate. Some Democrats just cannot think clearly. It's a matter of intelligence and common sense. I hope they all go to the Republican Party and bring that party down with their ineptitude.

Whereas, 8:24 indicates the kind of sound reasoning the Democratic Party needs. As for those who just don't get it it's a matter "Never try to teach a pig how to sing. It's a waste of time and annoys the pig."

I, for one, am an Obama supporter who would absolutely support Clinton if she won the primaries.

I don't like her because she voted for the Iraq war, for the Patriot Act, and for many other awful things the Bush administration wanted, and she fills spot 1 on JudicialWatch's list of corrupt politicians 2007, but she is no doubt less evil than McCain.

McCain may appear to be a moderate superficially because he takes a reasonable stance on some issues such as health care, but under the cover, McCain is a Neo-Nazi who will mess up the world as much as, if not more than, George W. Bush.

Does anyone who thinks McCain is a moderate remember his "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" song? How would you feel if Ahmadinejad went on stage and sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb the US"?That's what everyone outside the US thinks of McCain. He is not only guaranteed to launch a genocidal war against all Arabs, his "bomb them all" stance is also guaranteed to cause quite a few otherwise reasonable people to hate America, eventually causing more terrorism.

I think that anyone whose primary goal is to stop the nightmare that is the Bush administration will end up with a preference like

Yes, it will take time for some Obama supporters to get behind Clinton if she wins the nomination, and it will take timme for some Clinton supporters to get behind Obama if he wins -- but ultimately, they will realize what the right thing to do is, and settle on one of options 1.-6.

There are many young people who have never been interested in politics. They are turned off by divisive "politics as usual," where the way to win is to bring down your opponent. I have many friends who, like me, are in their mid 20s who agree have that sentiment. They have no recollection of any presidents other than Clinton and Bush.

Obama has taught them that a different style of politics is possible and has brought them into the process. If he loses, they have no interest in supporting a candidate who they feel is a part of the system that turned them off of politics in the first place. They probably will not cast votes in the national election if Obama does not get the nomination.

People like myself who have been voting religiously will likely support whichever of the two candidates wins the Democratic nomination, and, like me, probably had a tough time choosing who to vote for in their states' primary. We will vote for either Clinton or Obama in the national election. The newcomers that Obama is bringing into the party might not.

Andy, your framing of this question is inaccurate to begin with, which makes it difficult to answer. Here's my shot at Election Psych 101.

There are some virulent supporters on both sides who have made the claim they would not support the other. However, I think the loudest choruses of late have come from Obama people because given the current trend, Obama will arrive at Denver with more popular votes, more states and more pledged delegates, meaning that a Clinton victory would only be possible via an overturning of popular opinion by the superdelegates. That scenario should be an outrage to anyone who says they believe in democracy. If the superdelegates overturned the will of the people, that would be an arrogance beyond comprehension and people would be rightly pissed. Suggesting that they would then go to the polls and vote for "anyone but Clinton" (or just not vote at all) is merely a response that would be intended to punish the system and everyone that supported it: "You overrule me? Then you get what you deserve. You made this mess, not me." This concept is the basis of our penal system. You commit a bad deed, you get punished and hopefully others will be deterred when they see the punishment you've received.

That said, I can only hope that the superdelegates do not overturn the will of the majority of people.

Why do you insist on thinking that the super delegates were designed to be a part of the democratic process? They were designed to be the cooler heads and prevent, if they can, the Dems loosing the election by nominating someone unelectable in the GE. Every time you distort the purpose of the super delegates you increase the likelihood of an intrademocratic war. What is democratic about the stupid caucus by the way, without which Obama would arguably not have his slim lead. And can some one tell me what executive experience Mr. Torture has?